That’s where the problem lies. I would never had figured that your example applied to your statement. We need to make the text more specific to avoid people believing they have to have a verbose notification.
JC
From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 2:50 PM
To: JC Cannon
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Alternative Text for DNT: 0 (ACTION-209, ISSUE-148)
There is, to be sure, a level of generality problem. I think we can reasonably expect more than just a "learn more" link and less than a full privacy policy. Without getting prescriptive, we can ask for some modest degree of inline explanation. I've attached a rough UI mockup that reflects my thinking.
Jonathan
On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM, JC Cannon wrote:
Jonathan,
The text, “it MUST clearly explain those practices” seems a bit vague. How about “it MUST explain why it is making the request”? I don’t feel explaining all practices within a request is practical. A “Learn more” link would be more practical.
Thanks,
JC
From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:44 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Alternative Text for DNT: 0 (ACTION-209, ISSUE-148)
Normative:
i. In General
A DNT: 0 exception allows a website to conduct specific practices that are otherwise prohibited by this specification.
ii. Explanation Requirement
When a website requests a DNT: 0 exception, it MUST clearly explain those practices to the user.
iii. Multiple Semantics
If a website maintains multiple semantics for DNT: 0, it is responsible for associating the proper semantic with a user agent. If a website cannot determine the semantics associated with a DNT: 0 exception, it may not rely on the exception.
Non-Normative Discussion:
i. Legal Implications
This specification does not take a position on whether the DNT: 0 exception mechanism is sufficient to satisfy any legal requirements.